I mean to say, just to give one example: Suppose Finland's population was 300 million (about America's current number), while the USA's population was 5 million (about Finland's current number). I'd bet there would be far fewer Bulge and D-Day games, and far more games on: the Winter (Russo-Finnish) War (1939-1940), the Finnish Civil War (1918), the Great Northern War (Finnish operations, 1710-1721), etc.

Bit late, but gotta throw comment in here. Though population of whole Finland doesn't even meet population of some capital cities and therefore international market for wargames and everything else is marginal at best, we can be very vocal about wargames. I recall something said about some wargame (could been Combat Mission 2 or original Steel Panthers) getting more feedback from Finland than anywhere else.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

1. Utilize new payment models available. Kickstarter, Steam Greenlight, and the Alpha funding model used by a lot of indie games come to mind. A lot of talk comes to funding old war games and putting up new expensive projects. Why not use Kickstarter to look into what people want and how far the game can get off the people's interests? For example, I'd love to see a new operational game covering the Aillied front from Normandy to Germany. Why not put a Kickstarter up with Tiered goals like Planetary Annihilation where once the funding for the base game, Normandy in our case, is secured the goal changes into how much extra content goes onto the base game.

2. Get more games onto major digital distribution. Why isn't the Matrix games catalog on Steam? I'd argue that even if they take a lion's share of the pie, the amount of sales caused by the publicity will out balance it out. In the worst situation, somebody might buy a game on impulse and lose interest very fast, but it'd still be revenue.

3. Make games more accessible. Not by simplifying things but providing a path for the player. The combat mission games are taking a step forward by offering multiple tutorials and a recommended scenario path that do not overwhelm the player, and gives the player all types of easily identifiable scenarios that are clear and concise in briefings.

4. Get the community involved. Valve has done a wonderful job providing content developers an recognition and cash incentives. I'd really like to see this model be utilized in the war gaming community. One thing that comes to mind is the STX Exchange's donations model. Provide the community download depots and stuff and such, but give the community options to fund these projects. Offer a co-op type of payment model where the content maker receives a portion of the money like valve does with it's models and maps.

I agree with putting some of the games on Steam or other download services. I love Matrix games, however, some of the old titles are still being listed for $39.99 and I wonder if anyone even downloads them anymore for that price. I think they should put them up at 9.99 and have sales like Steam and you would see them move. Them, when people like them they will try out more recent games and then be hooked.

I agree with putting some of the games on Steam or other download services. I love Matrix games, however, some of the old titles are still being listed for $39.99 and I wonder if anyone even downloads them anymore for that price. I think they should put them up at 9.99 and have sales like Steam and you would see them move. Them, when people like them they will try out more recent games and then be hooked.

The PC was dying in 2004, the PC was dying in 2008, big series like Tomb Raider and Sim City broke sales records this year. The problem with gaming companies revenues at the AAA level is the cost of the games today. Their maxing out graphics, hiring tons more than they ever did and setting unrealistic sales goals. Bad business practices doesn't mean PC gaming is dying though, nor is it an indication that war gaming is dying.

Panzer General II was a smash hit and sold over 100,000 copies in 1997.

Panzer Corps has sold over 200,000 units in 2012. Granted I assume DLC is included there so it's not the same as 100,000 but it could be more than 100,000 of the full version or at least close.

I often wonder though how many new young wargamers are entering the market? They've been introduced to shooters and rts games and I'm wondering if they really are getting interested in grandpa's turn based slow as christmas thinking persons games? Heck I don't even like to play board wargames anymore cause of all the setup time and reading the rules 100 times to be sure we're playing it correctly. But, I would like them ported to the PC and let the computer do all that rules keeping. So change even effected me (or is that affected? never could remember one from the other) and I left board wargaming for computer wargaming. Back in my day we didn't have FPS or RTS games of any size and quantity on the PC and boardlike wargames on the PC were number 1. Now FPS and RTS games outnumber PC wargames by the 100's and PC wargames get lost in the back of the commercial so to speak.

We need more games like Command OPs and Norbsofts combat engine whereby we command more than click click click click play. I really am hoping for a Normandy type Command OPs game (and no Wodin I don't want no mods I want the real thing by the real developer cause he knows best).

I often wonder though how many new young wargamers are entering the market? They've been introduced to shooters and rts games and I'm wondering if they really are getting interested in grandpa's turn based slow as christmas thinking persons games? Heck I don't even like to play board wargames anymore cause of all the setup time and reading the rules 100 times to be sure we're playing it correctly. But, I would like them ported to the PC and let the computer do all that rules keeping. So change even effected me (or is that affected? never could remember one from the other) and I left board wargaming for computer wargaming. Back in my day we didn't have FPS or RTS games of any size and quantity on the PC and boardlike wargames on the PC were number 1. Now FPS and RTS games outnumber PC wargames by the 100's and PC wargames get lost in the back of the commercial so to speak.

We need more games like Command OPs and Norbsofts combat engine whereby we command more than click click click click play. I really am hoping for a Normandy type Command OPs game (and no Wodin I don't want no mods I want the real thing by the real developer cause he knows best).

I'm 25 fwiw. I've been wargaming since I was 13, and I can honestly say that the original Panzer General got me interested in more deeper wargames.

I think it's safe to say that Panzer General, Civil War Generals, and Sid Meier's Gettysburg acted as my gateway games into much deeper wargames like WiTP.

Games like PC are very good for complex games imho because they get people who might otherwise never get into the genre into the genre and from there some (not all) will move to wanting something more. Casual games are important for the industry.

I also think that YouTube is a gift to niche games as it makes it so much easier to market. Granted I don't have access to sales figures but I've gotten at least 20-25 pm's from people who said they bought Scourge of War, Panzer Corps, Crusader Kings, and Out of the Park Baseball as a result of watching some videos I put together.

I suppose some of them are lying but its basically free advertising for people to check out games they probably never would have heard of before. I have over 50,000 views on videos on Panzer Corps, 30,000+ on SOW, and 20,000+ on a baseball sim called Out of the Park Baseball. Granted those figures are puny in YouTube land but the guy who does out of 8 has over 800,000 views on wargames he covers and I guarantee you many of the viewers of his videos, mine and several others out there are introducing new people to these games who would otherwise never see the games.

I also think that YouTube is a gift to niche games as it makes it so much easier to market. Granted I don't have access to sales figures but I've gotten at least 20-25 pm's from people who said they bought Scourge of War, Panzer Corps, Crusader Kings, and Out of the Park Baseball as a result of watching some videos I put together.

I suppose some of them are lying but its basically free advertising for people to check out games they probably never would have heard of before. I have over 50,000 views on videos on Panzer Corps, 30,000+ on SOW, and 20,000+ on a baseball sim called Out of the Park Baseball. Granted those figures are puny in YouTube land but the guy who does out of 8 has over 800,000 views on wargames he covers and I guarantee you many of the viewers of his videos, mine and several others out there are introducing new people to these games who would otherwise never see the games.

That's a really good point. I do think that war game publishers should make more of You Tube as a marketing tool. The trailers are ok. But the real deal is the Let's Play walk-throughs.

I have recently bought Defense Grid - The Awakening. Ok, a tower defence game and not your normal war game fare but I had never heard of it before until I came across a Let's Play series on You Tube.

I liked what I saw and I bought the game.

Would I have bought it normally? No. I had never of it before. Would I have bought it on the strength of a trailer video? No. Trailer videos give no indication of game play.

Demo versions are ok but you already need to know that the game exists. As a pure marketing tool a You Tube Let's Play series is just about as good as it gets.